Kirk Wagar, a Florida lawyer who has raised more than $1 million for President Obama’s re-election bid, had his choice of rooms for the Democratic convention at Charlotte’s Ritz-Carlton or Westin hotels and nightly access to hospitality suites off the convention floor.

Jay Snyder, a New York financier who has raised at least $560,000 for Mr. Obama, was entitled to get his picture taken on the podium at the Time Warner Cable Arena.

And Azita Raji, a retired investment banker who has raised over $3 million for Mr. Obama — more than almost anyone else during the last two years — could get pretty much anything that she wanted last week in Charlotte: briefings with senior Obama officials, invitations to post-speech parties, along with “priority booking” at the city’s finest hotels.

In the race for cash, Mr. Obama often praises his millions of grass-roots donors, those die-hards whose $3 or $10 or $75 contributions are as much a symbol of the president’s political identity as they are a source of ready cash. But his campaign’s big-dollar fund-raising has become more dependent than it was four years ago on a smaller number of large-dollar donors and fund-raisers.

All told, Mr. Obama’s top “bundlers” — people who gather checks from friends and business associates — raised or gave at least $200 million for Mr. Obama’s re-election bid and the Democratic National Committee through the end of May, close to half of the total up to that point, according to internal campaign documents obtained by The New York Times.

The documents provide a detailed look into the intricate world of presidential fund-raising, which Mr. Obama and his team have mastered, and donor-stroking, which some supporters complain they have not. The campaign closely monitors its top bundlers, rating them by how much each individual or couple has raised and donated each year going back to 2007.

Officials used that amount, in turn, to offer donor packages of access and entertainment for the convention last week, themed to the location in North Carolina: “OBX” (bumper-sticker shorthand for the Outer Banks) for those raising at least $1 million, down to “Carolina on My Mind” for those who have donated merely $75,800 to Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee, the maximum allowed under federal law.

“It confirms everything we’ve always believed about the role of big money in politics,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group that tracks political fund-raising. “The more you give, the more you gather, the more you get.”

Each individual or couple is also assigned a lifetime Obama total. Topping the list is Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood producer, who, along with his fund-raising partner, Andy Spahn, has brought in at least $6.6 million combined for the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, according to the documents.

The top fund-raiser for 2011 and 2012 is Andrew Tobias, a Miami-based author who is treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and a major bundler for Mr. Obama among gay donors. Terry McAuliffe, a former party chairman and Bill Clinton loyalist, shot into Mr. Obama’s top bundler ranks this year after he and Mr. Clinton agreed to hold a Virginia fund-raiser for Mr. Obama. He has raised about $2.2 million for Mr. Obama, according to the documents, more than all but a few supporters.

Because not all of Mr. Obama’s bundlers are represented through the end of May, the documents may understate the total that top supporters have raised for Mr. Obama. But even so, they reveal how dependent even Mr. Obama — whose grass-roots fund-raising machine is unrivaled in political history — is on a relative handful of wealthy individuals raising millions of dollars on his behalf, often while having significant business or legal interests before the Obama administration.

Among the top 10 fund-raisers on the list for 2012, for example, are Steve Spinner, a former Department of Energy official who pushed the White House to approve a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, the failed solar power company.

DreamWorks Animation, the studio Mr. Katzenberg leads, is among several in Hollywood that earlier this year were notified of an investigation into whether entertainment companies had made illegal payments to officials in China in connection with their dealings there.

Mitt Romney has fielded an equally formidable high-dollar fund-raising machine this year and could raise as much or more than Mr. Obama during the election cycle. Like the Democrats, Republicans offered big donors an array of perks at their convention, held in Tampa, Fla., last month, including choice hotel access, boat trips and access to Mr. Romney himself.

Mr. Obama already makes public the names of his bundlers, along with ranges for how much they have raised, a practice not required by law. Mr. Romney has declined to release such information, though monthly disclosures filed by his campaign suggest that he is even more dependent than Mr. Obama on big bundlers and donors who have given the legal maximum.

“Our major volunteer fund-raisers, as well as the ranges of contributions they raised, were previously made public because unlike Governor Romney, we disclose them on our Web site,” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama’s publicly disclosed categories stop at the $500,000-and-up level, however. The internal documents show that at least 60 individuals and couples reside in an even more elite club, having raised more than $1 million for Mr. Obama and the party.

They include Frank White Jr., a technology entrepreneur who has raised $2.3 million for Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign; Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, who has raised $2.7 million; Robert Wolf, a former executive at UBS Americas, the banking company, who has raised about $1.3 million; and Reshma Saujani, a lawyer who is running for New York City public advocate next year and is active among young larger donors, who has raised about $1 million.

About 260 of the bundlers did not raise any money for Mr. Obama during his 2008 campaign, according to the document. That reflects the extraordinary effort Mr. Obama made to recruit new fund-raisers for his re-election effort, as former supporters lost enthusiasm or moved on to other pursuits.

But it also reflects the number of former fund-raisers whom Mr. Obama appointed to ambassadorial and other posts, leaving them barred from political activities.

Looks like Citizen's United didn't hurt the left at all—despite the SuperPacs.

It isn't the result, its the poisoning of the process. Running ads that are outright lies and not having anyone have to take responsibility for them. "People" should be held accountable for how they choose to influence elections.

__________________
You'll see it's all a show, keep 'em laughing as you go, just remember, the last laugh is on you, and always look on the bright side of life!

I still remember the state of the union. When Obama said that the Citizens United decision would lead to corperations and individuals being able to give unlimited anounts of money to campaigns. You have a Supreme Court justice shake his head and mouth "thats not true". Republicans jumped all over him, He's a justice, Obama was just a proffesor of Constitutional law. He doesnt know shit in the real world. Wellll we all know who was right.

This has corupted our political system. The ability of the rich and corporations to give umlimited money secretly has changed our political system so much that it will eventually endanger the whole process.

Corporations are not people. Giving money secretly is not free speech. You say money is speech, fine. If you speak out with your money, you should not be able to do that secretly.

This will eventually take the individual out of the political equation. I understand that already exists in some form. But, this will only end badly.

Question for the R's, how do you feel about foreign countries and foreign corperations being allowed to give unlimited secret money to political campaigns? Do you not see the harm that could do to our system?

nah, everything is perfect in 'Merica except Obama. You entitled left nut.

It isn't the result, its the poisoning of the process. Running ads that are outright lies and not having anyone have to take responsibility for them. "People" should be held accountable for how they choose to influence elections.

You have something against the First Amendment then. I expect that of the Left. Censorship is their game.

You have something against the First Amendment then. I expect that of the Left. Censorship is their game.

Who said anything about censorship? I said people should be held responsible for the exercising of their first amendment rights. One can't do that if they are able to hide behind a Super PAC name. Jeezus, you really don't know how to read what people actually type if it doesn't fit your narrative.

__________________
You'll see it's all a show, keep 'em laughing as you go, just remember, the last laugh is on you, and always look on the bright side of life!

That's what you're actually doing without recognizing it. Afterall, that's what that decision was about. Not just money. You can't make connections.

Quote:

I said people should be held responsible for the exercising of their first amendment rights.One can't do that if they are able to hide behind a Super PAC name.

Yeah, but see it's your side wants to add an an Amendment to undo that decision to make people responsible for their 1st Amendment rights. That would restrict speech and that is censorship. It's falls under that whole idea. Listen to you about using lies in a campaign as if Obama didn't do it. That's not going to stop any candidate from lying.

I do support disclosure though.

Quote:

Jeezus, you really don't know how to read what people actually type if it doesn't fit your narrative.

You can't make connections or allow people to add to the discussion on their own because you think the argument can only be narrowed to what you posted. Censorship again.

That's what you're actually doing without recognizing it. Afterall, that's what that decision was about. Not just money. You can't make connections.

Yeah, but see it's your side wants to add an an Amendment to undo that decision to make people responsible for their 1st Amendment rights. That would restrict speech and that is censorship. It's falls under that whole idea. Listen to you about using lies in a campaign as if Obama didn't do it. That's not going to stop any candidate from lying.

I do support disclosure though.

You can't make connections or allow people to add to the discussion on their own because you think the argument can only be narrowed to what you posted. Censorship again.

I'm saying don't attribute it to me.

__________________
You'll see it's all a show, keep 'em laughing as you go, just remember, the last laugh is on you, and always look on the bright side of life!

So if someone argues a point with you it's now uncivil? Geesh! You act like you were called names or something. I just don't like when my point is twisted or being censored from adding something. You didn't sound particularly civil yourself.

So if someone argues a point with you it's now uncivil? Geesh! You act like you were called names or something. I just don't like when my point is twisted or being censored from adding something. You didn't sound particularly civil yourself.

No, if someone attributes things to you instead of asking you if this is fair of your view is uncivil. You're making broad characterizations, "So you want censorship" for the purpose of grandstanding, treating the person as if they were a prop for your soapbox.

That you don't understand that, or pretend not to, is what makes you uncivil. Your pretense isn't to discuss, its to yell in the hope everyone else will see your brilliance on the subject. So, by all means, keep at it, and I'll go back to ignoring you again.

__________________
You'll see it's all a show, keep 'em laughing as you go, just remember, the last laugh is on you, and always look on the bright side of life!

No, if someone attributes things to you instead of asking you if this is fair of your view is uncivil. You're making broad characterizations, "So you want censorship" for the purpose of grandstanding, treating the person as if they were a prop for your soapbox.

Then we disagree. I still feel you were calling for censorship without using those words.

Quote:

That you don't understand that, or pretend not to, is what makes you uncivil. Your pretense isn't to discuss, its to yell in the hope everyone else will see your brilliance on the subject. So, by all means, keep at it, and I'll go back to ignoring you again.

I look forward to it. Feeling is mutual Mr. Pot Calling Kettle. You engaged in not only a personal attack but saying it was a generality. But you're civil.